Sample of Research Paper 1
Topic: Company Investigation
Proposal: Duke Energy
To:
Dr.Instructor
From:
Re:
Duke Energy
Date:
February 13, 2014
For
our project the group has decided to cover the Duke Energy Company. The company
has been in existence for over 150 years. Duke Energy deals in supplying
electric energy to 7.2 million customers in the US and it also supplies gas to
over 500000 customers. The Company is also a Fortune 250 Company and is listed on
the New York Stock exchange. Duke Energy supplies over 57,700 megawatts of
electricity in the Carolinas, Florida and the Midwest. They also supply natural
gas to in Kentucky and Ohio.
The
reason why we have decided to do a case study on Duke Energy is because it is a
company that stands for what we believe in as individuals. Duke Energy as a
company provides both gas and electric energy to millions of people in North
and Latin America making lives easier for people in these countries. The gas
they provide is also clean, reliable and affordable.
The
Company has also received various awards as a result of their good work and
their contribution to the economy and the society at large. In 2013 alone, Duke
Energy received three awards which were the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for
North America award, the 100 Best Corporate Citizens award and the Top
Utilities for Economic Development Award. Duke Energy is a good case study for
our project also because various team members can easily get access into the
company as they know individuals working there hence providing easy access into
the company. Furthermore, the company’s status as a fortune 250 company makes
it a good case study. It has also been in existence for a long period of time
making it a company that will provide extensive data with regard to corporate
structure and other features we shall be looking at in the study. Duke energy
is also well known for its philanthropy among various communities and schools
in the region. Lastly studying Duke Energy will allow us to get knowledge that
could prove useful in future when seeking career opportunities in the company.
References
Duke-energy.com.
(2014, Feb 13). Duke-energy.com. Retrieved from /www.duke-energy.com:
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/awards.asp
Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!
Sample of Research Paper 2
Coca
Cola Performance Measurement System
Introduction
Performance
measurement system (PMS) has become a major area of concern for international
organizations due to the changing customer needs and increasing competition. A
performance measurement system is characterized by an elaborate process of
communicating employee performance expectations, sustaining ongoing performance
dialogue, and undertaking annual performance appraisals (Bourne et al, 2002). PMS
also consists of procedural strategies for dealing with employee performance
that is below expectations, how to encourage and facilitate employee
development, as well as training in management of performance and
administration of the system. Finally, a PMS outlines the procedure that a
company should follow in addressing performance pay disputes.
This
paper assesses and reviews the performance measurement system of a major
multinational company - Coca Cola Enterprise Ltd. The paper examines the use of
a type of performance measurement system, the Balanced Scoreboard, used by Coca
Cola in a multinational context. The study builds on data and information
collected through interviews, documentary analysis and internet search. The
report first considers the definitions of performance measurement and Balanced Scoreboard
(BSC) methodologies used by the Coca-Cola Company.
The
report also discusses the main management processes involved in designing and
execution of the performance measurement systems currently in use by Coca-Cola.
The paper provides literature review on the implementation of the PMS, followed
by detailed description and explanation of Coca-Cola’s performance system. The
report ends with recommendations on how the company can improve its current PMS
on the basis of expert opinion.
Methodology
The
research methodology adopted for this study is interviews, documentary analysis
and internet search. As such, the study makes use of both qualitative and
quantitative techniques of research. The global company of choice was Coca-Cola
which uses the balanced scoreboard technique of performance measurement
analysis. Interviews were conducted with senior managers and directors at
Coca-Cola who participate directly in the performance measurement process at
the company.
Considering
the small population of potential participants as well as the background knowledge
on the performance measurement implementation issues, the research evaluated
all available methodological option and eventually settled on a grounded
approach instead of a formal questionnaire (Wade & Recardo, 2013). As such, a semi-structured interview
protocol was developed and pre-tested for the purpose of gaining uninhibited
responses to the open ended questions relating to the reasons for implementing
the PMS at the company.
The
researcher anticipated the probability of the respondents focusing on one
single factor while ignoring other significant factors (Neely & Bourne,
2003). To avert this problem and ensure some level of consistency across
interviews, therefore, the interview format in the semi-structured approach was
as follows:
-
Each interview kicked off with a brief
series of open ended questions;
-
The responses to the open ended
questions were probed to ascertain that the interview comprehended the points
being made as well as for gathering specific examples;
-
The open ended questions were succeeded
by questions focusing on a prompt list of likely reasons;
-
The answers to the prompt list were then
probed to ascertain comprehension.
The
prompt list was designed from the original research design and thus based on
Pettigrew et al.’s (1989) aspects of organizational situation, performance measurement content as well as
the process of designing and developing these measures. The prompts were
customized to elicit the strongest reasons for the continued implementation of
the performance measurement system at Coca-Cola. The prompts also sought to
identify the problems and challenges encountered and how they were overcome.
Data
was gathered during the interviews, documentary analysis and internet search
where the researchers took detailed notes. The notes were written up within 24
hours and later utilized as the basis for data analysis. Data analysis process
entailed coding the feedback gathered and using the summarized data to
establish the major themes arising from the interviews, documentary analysis
and internet search.
Given
that the interviews took the semi-structured format, the interviewer made the
most of the discretion this method allowed to follow up the responses to the
original questions. Detailed probing of the answers given resulted in additional
insights into the reasons for the success of the PMS that was evident from the
initial responses. These insights were gained by posing oblique extra questions
that reflected back to what the interviewer had indicated but probed the
completeness of the original response. In all instances this resulted in more
detailed confidential information. The semi-structured interviews were
undertaken with Coca-Cola directors and managers directly involved in the
implementation of the PMS at the company.
Literature Review
Performance
measurement systems (PMS) has been an area of research since the 1990s since
Kaplan and colleagues introduced Balanced Scoreboard (BSC) as a type of PMS
model. The research on PMS has since taken two directions: some studies such as
Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Otley 1999; Tuomela, 2005 have researched the role of
PMS in the implementation of organizational strategies (Bourne et al, 2002).
Kaplan
and Nortin (2000), the Mobile case, discussed many success stories of
organizations implementing new performance measurement systems. Studies by
Gordon & Narayan (1984); Modell (1996); Cobb et al. (1995); Granlund &
Lukka (1988); Brignall et al. (1991); Hoque & James (2000); Hussain &
Hoque (2002); and Andon et al (2007) have advanced theoretical explanations on
performance measurement system change and its uses in different organizational
settings (Neely & Bourne, 2003).
Background
The
Coca Cola Company is an American multinational beverage company, manufacturer,
retailers as well as world-leading marketer of nonalcoholic beverage
concentrates and syrups based in Atlanta, Georgia (Malik et al, 2010). It was
founded in 1886. The company is reputed for its flagship product Coca-Cola –
initially a fragrant, caramel-colored liquid mixed with carbonated water – invented
by pharmacist John Smith Permberton in 1886. The company was incorporated in
1892 and currently offers more than 500 brands in over 200 countries around the
world. The Coca-Cola Company operates a franchised distribution system, in
which the company only produces syrup concentrate which is thereafter
merchandized to various bottlers located around the world. The company’s own
anchor bottler – Coca-Cola Refreshments – is located in North America. The
basis of performance management at Coca-Cola Company is known as Key Results
Area (KRA) (Bourne et al, 2002).
Coca-Cola’s Performance management
system
Performance
measurement is defined as the process by which a firm sets in place the
framework within which its programs, investments, and acquisitions are designed
to meet desired results (Wade &
Recardo, 2013). In other words, performance measurement relates to
measuring such aspects of performance as quality, quantity, costs, cycle time,
productivity, efficiency, etc, of a company’s products and services.
Performance measurement is often based on quantitative (report) base where the overall
goals and objectives of a company are defined and evaluated. In this regard,
measurement of performance is an organization-wide concept and such measures
are inter-dependent (Malik et al, 2010). The aggregate contribution of the
measures reflects the effectiveness of the entire organization’s effort.
Therefore,
a company’s performance measurement system is not only concerned with collection
of data but also with predefined performance targets and standards (Neely &
Bourne, 2003). This renders performance measurement as an overall management
system that entails prevention and detection for the purpose of attaining
conformance of the product and service. In general, performance measurement
serves to keep the company focused on the changing customer demands and
competitor actions (Bourne et al, 2002). Taking all these into consideration,
therefore, a performance measurement can be said to be the set of metrics that
an organization employs in quantifying both the efficiency and effectiveness of
its actions.
Therefore,
a performance measurement system as a wide management programs serves to
provide an organization with a structured approach of communicating business
strategy, establishing shared understanding of the targeted goals and how to
achieve it, facilitating management of self and others; and measuring and
motivation performance both at the organizational and individual levels (Malik
et al, 2010).
Balanced Scorecard
Balanced
Scorecard is the type of performance measurement system used at Coca-Cola for
measuring and managing its most crucial processes. The scorecard takes into
consideration all elements of the organizational behaviors as well the
stakeholders on the basis of growth, market competitors, legislation, customer
expectation, product growth, customer satisfaction, among others (Neely &
Bourne, 2003). As is the case with other performance management techniques, the
balanced Scoreboard technique demands the company develops a vision, mission
strategy and corporate strategy. This is
especially the case because these requirements are the fundaments for establishing
the correct set of Balanced Scoreboard metrics from a broad list of
possibilities that often still exist even after the essential few processes
have been already identified. A company seeking to implement a successful
Balanced Scoreboard methodology thus first needs to figure out those leveraged
internal process measures (Malik et al, 2010).
The
Coca-Cola Company’s performance management system (PMS) places greater emphasis
on rewards, recognition, and career development (Manzoni & Islam, 2009).
Therefore, the performance measurement system at the company has typical four
progressive stages: (1) Annual Performance Review; (2) Plan performance for the
financial year; (3) Reward and Recognition; and (4) Mid-term Review. Figure 1 below illustrates the Performance
Management System of Coca Cola Company.
Figure
1: Coca-Cola Performance Management System
|
|
·
|
Assess Results
Appreciate
‘Top
Accomplishments’
·
Coaching & feedback
on
previous year KRA1,
KRA2
and Competencies.
· Prepare
development
plan
for current year
KRA1,
KRA2, and
Competencies.
The
Coca-Cola company begins with formulating all goals from the organizational
level to employees, after which monthly review is conducted to assess
implementation of the goals. Monthly review is conducted at interdepartmental
level, where neither change is offered nor a record made which can be done at goal setting level. At midyear
stage, the company realigns its goals in addition to designing new policy ways
to achieve organizational goals. During the final review, the company
undertakes checks and balances, then matches actual achievement with the
set goals to measure outcomes or
results. If the company gets positive results in terms of greater productivity,
it analyzes the real reasons for the results to appropriately reward employees
with extraordinary yearly base performance (Wade & Recardo, 2013). The rewards often include salary
increment, promotions of jump and designation change.
Effective
performance measuring requires constant monitoring and considerable direction
from the manager. At Coca Cola, performance is highly linked with their pay
system. As such, the company’s management relies on grading to define pay. This
achieve by conducting survey of leading companies in the industry, where they
consider minimum three year pay ranges of the companies and compute the average
(Malik et al, 2010). Coca-Cola then aligns their pay system with their
management grades. This takes into consideration the inflation rate each year
regardless of an individual’s performance. The company informs its employees
about their individual performance during the appraisal period. This translates
that Coca-Cola is a goal-oriented company and demands of its employees to
achieve their individual targets so as to get appraised. Therefore, Coca-Cola’s
system for performance measurement is based on meeting of objectives, which are
rated on basis of a 4-point rating scale (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). The employees
are categorized into five main groups:
TNTR – Too New To Rate
NP – Not Meeting Performance
Expectations
DP – Developing Performance
SP – Successful Performance
EP – Exceptional Performance
Figure
2 below shows the 4-poing rating scale at Coca-Cola
|
Ratings
of Objectives
|
Definition
|
||
|
Exceptional
Performance (EP)
|
Objectives
(Business KRA &
Self/people
Development
|
a. Consistently
delivers outstanding results & exceed expectations and accountabilities
b. Exceeds
aggressive targets & objectives
c. Outcomes
add substantial value to team, business & customer/client
|
|
|
Competencies:
|
Excels
in demonstrating the competencies (skills, knowledge & behaviors)
required for the role.
|
||
|
Successful
Performance (SP)
|
Objectives
(Business
KRA & Self/People Development
|
a. Consistently
delivers all agreed upon outcomes and meets expectations &
accountabilities
b. Adds
value to team, business and
client/customer
|
|
|
Competencies:
|
Broad
strengths across most competencies (skills, knowledge, and behaviors)
required for the role
|
||
|
Developing
Performance (DP)
|
Objectives
(Business
KRA & Self/People Development)
|
Sometimes
meets agreed upon results, but not all expectations and accountabilities
|
|
|
Competencies:
|
Demonstrates
most of the competencies (skills, knowledge and behaviors) required for the role, but not the full range.
Significant improvement is needed in
at-least one or more skills and knowledge areas (weakness that prevents
successful performance of the job)s
|
||
|
Not
Meeting Performance (NP)
|
Objectives
(Business
KRA & Self/People Development
|
Performance
falls below agreed upon outcomes and expectations on multiple critical
accountabilities.
|
|
|
Competencies:
|
Does
not consistently demonstrate many of the competencies (skills, knowledge, and
behaviors) required of the role. Significant improvement is required.
|
||
|
Too
New to Rate (TNTR)
|
Typically
spent less than 3 months in the role
|
||
Based
on their individual rating, the employees are appraised to the next level.
There are specific objectives for the different ratings which an employee needs
to fulfill as well as certain competencies that must be demonstrated. The KRA
setting process becomes an integral part of Coca-Cola’s performance measurement
process. The KRA reflects a set of objectives that the company outlines to be
achieved by individual employees to enable the organization to achieve its
goals. This means that there exist strong relationship between the performance
measurement process and achievement of organizational objectives at Coca-Cola.
The
External Environment Analysis
The
Coca-Coca Company is operating in hyper competitive environment which
necessitates effective performance measurement at the company so as to ensure
highly skilled and technically qualified workforce. This is especially crucial
because organizational success greatly depends on the performance of the
employees. Coca-Cola places high relevance of performance measurement to remain
relevant and competitive in the increasingly competitive business environment.
As
a market leader, Coca-Cola is facing a number of pressures from its external
environment. In the last decade, the company has come under increasing
criticism and protests from both the public and regulatory bodies in the different
countries that it does business in. The 2008-09 global financial crisis and
subsequent recessions also had far reaching negative effects on the performance
of Coca-Cola, significantly compromising its financial stability. However, the
company was still able to perform better relative to its competition. The
company involved itself in a number of strategic social ventures geared at
benefitting its image in the eyes of the public. This greater focus on
corporate social responsibility served to maintain Coca-Cola’s loyal customer
base together with keeping the trust of stakeholders. Currently, the company
faces a range of political, social, economic and technological challenges as
follows:
Political
Factors
The
Coca-Cola Company falls in the FDA non-alcoholic beverages category. The
operations of the company are therefore subject to regulation of different
rules and regulations by different countries. The government reserves the power
to set fines for companies that fail to meet standard law requirements. In this
regard, Coca-Cola has to remain vigil of the regulations and political climate
of each country it operates in so as to maintain and protect their brand image
by responding appropriately to risks. Coca-Cola can be impacted in significant
ways by any adverse changes in the laws and regulations e.g. taxation
requirements, accounting standards, foreign jurisdictions and environmental
laws (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). A number of governments across the world have
recently accused Coca-Cola of misuse of water and environmental depletion, some
filing public suits against the company.
Also,
the operations of Coca-Cola especially in the international markets, depend on
the political climate. Thus, business is impacted negatively in countries or
regions experiencing civil strives such as the Arab world. The company can also
be affected by government restrictions on relocating capital across borders.
Political
conditions, and by extension economic conditions, also dictate the ability of
Coca-Cola to penetrate emerging and developing markets. This is because the
political and economic climate influence Coca-Cola’s potential to effectively
form strategic business alliances with local companies, ability to enhance its
production amenities, distribution and sales networks, and technology.
Economic
A
global company is significantly affected by such economic factors as economic
stability, growth in revenue, total profit, and contribution to GDP etc. Coca-Cola
has the largest scale of distribution channels in the non-alcoholic beverages
in over 200 countries in the world. As a multinational company, therefore,
Coca-Cola is impacted in significant ways when the economic conditions in the countries
it operates changes for the better or worsens.
In
recent, Coca-Cola has operated in major economic shifts. In 2001, the
performance of Coca-Cola was adversely affected by the recession. The 2007
economic recession had far reaching negative effects on the company’s revenue, especially
because about 75 percent of its revenue comes from North America that was
greatly affected by the economic downturn. Since then, the non-alcoholic
beverage industry in which Coca-Cola dominates has seen increased sales in
markets outside the U.S. Many soft drink companies have experienced improved
economic conditions in such international markets as Germany, Brazil, and Japan
following the easing of the 2008-09 global financial crisis and recession.
Social
Coca-Cola
as the world’s leading manufacturer of non-alcoholic beverages is facing such
social challenges as changing consumer lifestyles. A growing number of US
citizens, for example, is concerned with healthier lifestyles. This translates
that the market with the greatest revenue share for Coca-Cola is shrinking as
more and more consumers switch to bottled water and diet cola. In the same
light, consumers between the age bracket of 37 and 55 are growing increasingly
concerned with their nutrition. In addition, the large portion of the
population is baby boomer, meaning that many of Coca-Cola’s loyal customers are
getting older and minding their diet a lot. This means that demand is only
increasing for healthier and other beverages, affecting sales of traditional carbonated
Coca-Cola products.
For
purposes of maintaining its brand image, Coca-Cola is aggressive in its
corporate social responsibility. The company has set apart huge sums of money
to fund education of poor children around the world e.g. program guaranteeing
basic education for children in Pakistan (Wade & Recardo, 2013). Coca-Cola is also an active
campaigner against the HIV/AIDS pandemic – donating in excess of $1 million to
raise awareness to that effect.
Technological
The
industry in which Coca-Cola does business is greatly influenced by
technological innovations. Technological aspects affecting the performance of a
company include the following:
i.
The efficiency of a company in
advertising, marketing and promotional strategies. These are affected by
technological advances in the internet and television that utilize incomparable
effects for advertising. These advances are used to present product ads more
attractive. Coca-Cola is a company that is renowned for superior advertising,
marketing and promotional programs to sell their products.
ii.
The introduction of cans and plastic
bottles has significantly boosted sales volume of beverages around the world
due to their ease of carrying and disposing.
iii.
Coca-Cola has taken advantage of the
ever-evolving technology in its manufacture and distribution of products. For
instance, Coca-Cola’s factories in Britain use state-of-the-art equipment to
ensure highest product quality together with quick delivery, leading to
increased production and sales volumes. Over the years, Coca-Cola has strived
to create competitive advantage by being the leader in new and unique
technologies (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). This can be evidenced by the
company’s introduction of ice-chilled coke, environmentally friendly plastic
bottles, and vending machines free of HFC. These inventions have significantly
boosted the brand image of Coca-Cola in the eyes of the public and the
stakeholders, in addition to contributing to improved financial performances (Wade & Recardo, 2013).
Recommendations
The
Coca-Cola company believes and pursues the GROW and the WHALE DONE approach. By
using the GROW model, Coca-Cola is able to assist its employees to understand
exactly where they want to be as well as what they have to accomplish or
develop so as to improve on the current level. The performance measurement
system is in itself a continuous
process, where the review is not conducted annually or quarterly, but rather a
continuous process for measuring performance, management and improvement based
on daily and monthly reviews by the manager. The WHALE DONE approach, on the
other hand, implies that Coca-Cola believes strongly in appraising any positive
performance immediately as espoused by the theory of motivation.
To
this effect, this paper recommends that
Coca-Cola works to develop its Competency Framework to make goals SMART
(specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time bound) so as to increase overall
effectiveness (Wade & Recardo,
2013). Coca-Cola would benefit from redesigning their system in more
precise way to define their employees’ career path, recognition as well as
future goals. This would significantly add to improved performance of the
organization.
Coca-Cola
company also pursues the basics steps of performance measurement system that
starts with planning to coaching to feedback (Manzoni & Islam, 2009). However,
this paper recommends that the company should consider adopting proper check
and balance system for goals and performance. At present, Coca-Cola undertakes
yearly based performance evaluation; the company can achieve high motivational
level for their employees if it started doing this on quarterly bases. In
addition, the company needs to put in place a better system of consultation
between the management and employees pertaining to the latter’s career path.
This will go a long way in helping the management to comprehend and assess
employees’ needs, and reward them properly.
Further,
there is need for Coca-Cola company to ensure fairness in appraisal and job
satisfaction in addition to aligning their PMS to effectively addressing
apprehensions and grievance pertaining to such appraisals. As a large
organization, the company should drop the obviously cumbersome 360 degree
appraisal implementation strategy (Wade
& Recardo, 2013).
References:
Bourne M.,
Neeley, A., Platts, K., & Mills, J. (2002). The Success and Failure of Performance Measurement Initiatives:
Perceptions of Participating Managers. International Journal of Operational
Production Management 22(11):1288-1310.
Malik, A. T.,
Khan, U. H., Shah, A., & Gul, S. (2010). Performance Measurement using
Distributed Performance Knowledge Management System: Empirical case study of
Coca Cola Enterprises. International
Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.6, No.1 February 2010, Pp.250‐282.
Manzoni, A., & Islam, S. M. N.
(2009). Performance measurement in corporate governance: DEA modeling and
implications for organizational behavior and supply chain management.
Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Neely, A., & Bourne, M. (2003). Implementing performance measurement systems:
a literature review. Int. J. Business Performance Management, Vol. 5,
No. 1, 2003.
Tonchia, S., & Quagini, L. (2010). Performance
measurement: Linking balanced scorecard to business intelligence. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Wade, D.,
& Recardo, R. (2013). Corporate Performance Management. London:
Routledge.
Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!
Sample of Research Paper 3
Team Development and Performance
throughout the Global Business Game (GBG)
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary
With the start of globalization change, there has been in surge in
matters connected to businesses. Companies are looking into ways the issues
that are connected to globalization are well handled through a relook at their
local ways of operation. Consequently with the rise in global business setting,
a number of organizations are forming teams that are comprised of members from
varied nations (Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 23). People
with varied cultural basis, languages and trends are engaged on a single
platform to work as one. Though these groups are meant to enable acquisition of
varied abilities, the teams are faced with several challenges that involve
language barrier and varied cultural settings. These tend to affect their
performance and advancement as a team (Tuckman, 1965, 386). This is discussed
in the paper as well as the viable solutions that would enable effective team
advancement and performance success in the companies that use them. The paper
has gone ahead to give examples of such companies that use them.
Team Development and Performance throughout the Global Business Game
(GBG)
1.
Introduction
Each and every global organization’s competitive advantage relies on
their capability to manage their vital resources and information that are
distributed to varied geographical positions. In the present times there are
many company methods that are applied to include isolated processes (Black,
Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 25). However the most effective
method is the global business team: a borderless team of persons of varied
origins in the world, engaged in varied cultures, businesses and duties, that
get together so as to harmonize certain aspects of multinational setup on an
international basis.
It is virtually hard for a multinational company to exploit economies of
an international size, optimize the change of knowledge or inculcate a global
base with no awareness of the organization of the global business teams.
Research shows that a small number of companies attribute their performance to
be of high standard while the rest did not meet their objectives (Bantel &
Jackson, 1989, 117; Bettenhausen, 1991, 345). Basically, about 30% of the teams
rated their performance as being overly ineffective. How are organizations able
to create team development and performance in the global business stage? In the
first step they have to be aware of the hindrances to an effective business
team performance. They later apply rigid procedures so as to alleviate these
hindrances and create a working team that leads to high performance.
2.
Team Work Development and Team Working
Teamwork is
vital in the effectiveness of a company’s operations. Social experts and group
theory researchers study teams so as to come up with theories that describe
effective methods.
The first
theory foundation was done in the 1950s with the help of psychologists in
assessing the manner humans connect to themselves. They focussed on the manner
work affects team relations and the response taken by team members to acquire
the talents and expertise of other individuals in sorting out an issue at the
workplace. Other areas of focus were the changes in the teams as time went by
and the manner that technology was incorporated in undertaking tasks. The first
study on team work was done after the Second World War and was keen on noting
the reasons for failure of military groups.
The
theories that were used to assess team-member tasks development is; Interaction
Process Analysis, which was postulated by Freed Bales in 1950. Here he assesses
the members of a group with the help of formal inventory model. David Buchanan
and Andrzej Huczynski put out a theory in 1980s that looked at the aspects of
power and form in team-working. Significant theories were done by Meredith
Belbin, Charles Margerison and Dick McCann in the 1980s that look into the
manner allocated members of a group tasks and connect these with duties
advanced due to individual group member’s nature.
3.
Impact of Teamwork in Company Performance
This part
assesses the impact of teamwork on a company’s performance. For a company to be
able to develop, it has to be able to instil constant skills in the workers in
the teamwork through learning. The assumption is that the groups accords the
employees with a setting for shared duties, skills and a constant professional
and individual advancement.
According
to research done in Bulgaria, team workers are known to always acquire new
skills when compared to those that do not work in groups. Managers similarly
are known to be more motivated when they are engaged in group work and they get
to learn from others hence bringing about effective results.
The Finnish
Quality of Work Life did studies that show connection in teamwork and staff
training. The staffs that are engaged in team work have a higher probability
for getting training and for advancement of their knowledge those individuals
that are not in groups. Team work has similarly the ability of affecting the
intensity of training; team work motivates the participants in getting to learn
faster and is able to remember things much faster.
4.
Strengths and Limitations Team working
There are a
number of benefits in team working. With a number of minds directed towards a
certain objective, the company is able to acquire more ideas. Focussing on
things from the point of view of others can elevate the probability of quality
innovation.
Teams bring about a setting
of backing and push an individual to application. A team setting can propel the
courage of a person, making them to acquire the most effective results.
Good teams
acquire the most from a person. In the instance that a person may not be able
to discharge their duties as needed, another person may offer the most
effective resource for the company. The higher the number of people that work
together, the more they get to learn and increase their chance of being better
workers in their places of work. Teams are able to bring about improved
communication and respectful connection in the staffs.
5.
Limitations of Team Working
Local and international teams are plagued by several issues –
disconnection of personal team members’ objectives, a shortage of the most vital expertise and experience, and the
absence of clarity with regard to team goals amongst others. However global
business teams incur a number of hindrances that arise from varied
geographical, linguistic and culture. Teams are not able to succeed if they cannot instill trust in their members
or if they are not able to cut the most notable communication hindrances
(Black, Gregersen, Mendenhall, & Stroh, 1999, 26). The outcome of a study
of 58 top executives from five American and European multinational companies
agree that significant hindrances face
global business teams – hindrances that lead to extended issues every team are
faced with.
5.1.
The Inability to Instil Trust in the team Members
Trust is vital to the effectiveness of global business teams as it
motivates collaboration and limits unproductive conflict. Every member of the
global business team issued a special cognitive focus to the team. If it is
handled in the best manner, the resultant variation can bring about major
issues and lead to a joint wisdom that is above that of any person (Bliese,
2000, 349). With no common trust, the team members may not be in a position to
show their genuine ideas; and if they do, they are bound not to be taken into
consideration. In most of the ways, the lack of trust is bound to change the
team’s diversity into a liability and not an asset.
Global business teams are precisely bound to be faced by a number issues
dealing with trust. Part of the elements that define the level of trust
individuals have, three significant attributes, quality of communication and
extensive company setting (Berscheid & Walster, 1978, 125). Quite
precisely, studies show that a good number of people have trust towards each
other in cases where they share the same attributes, interact constantly and
work in a similar cultural setting that issues strict sanctions for acting in a
fashion that is not trustworthy. Global business teams, in their manner undergo
intense limitations on the three phases (Brislin, 1986, 137). Not
astonishingly, the instant the global business teams do not succeed, it is in
most cases due to the team actions that did not insist on instilling trust.
5.2.
Hindrances to Communication
Communication
hindrances arising from geography, language and culture can destroy a global
business team.
With the team individuals staying in varied nations, kept apart by the
time zones and varying time periods, organization of team meetings may bring
about logistical issues (Ariel, 2001, 65). Definitely, technology like e-mail
and video-conferencing are able to make it possible for the associates to
engage as one with no consideration for physical distance; though technology
ought to be seen as an advantage that adds value to, and not stand it for the
team meetings (O’Leary, & Cummings, 2002, 38). Facial meetings bring about
acquaintance and trust that is not acquired using virtual methods. The instant
the members are not able to see the other person’s language of the body and
direct experience on the response exhibited, the emotional phase of the
association vital to a team’s undertaking effective performance is in jeopardy
(Ariel, 2001, 63). Free-association, as an example, needs unstructured
collaboration for some time that is not appropriate to a virtual meeting.
The incompetence to be aware of what another individual is putting
across is in most cases a rigid hindrance to communication in cases where
cultures are vast. If this issue on language variation as a hindrance is not
well handled, the probability of forming a setting that is viable to better
sharing of varied ideas - and therefore useful to acquiring vital answers – is
highly limited (Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 290).
A major instance is a team that has members that from varied cultural
settings and speaks varied languages as well as below par tools in a similar
language. This team would most definitely need interpreters that, with no
regard to their skills, are bound not to acquire complete success in
interaction. Similarly in instance of global teams that persons are of the same
language, variation in semantics, pitch and dialects may be a hindrance
(Bedeian, & Mossholder, 2000, 289). For instance, while the name ‘table a
motion’ means to defer meetings in the US while in the UK it says to look into
the matter that moment.
The global business team arises from several cultures and at the end may
result to contrast in values, accepted code of behaviors and trends of
attributes to the team (Adler, 1997, 23; Pedhazur, & Schmelkin, 1991, 67).
A good example is the contrast in personal and group cultural tendencies in
coming up with a decision. In the case where certain team members are from
greatly personal beliefs like the US and parts of UK and others quite group
affiliated like Japan and Venezuela, there has to be ways to handle these
contrast so as bring about commonality, otherwise the team will suffer and not
acquire high performance as needed (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 3; Wiener, 1988, 536).
6.
Role and Contribution
to real team development, team working, and strategic business decision making
The
work done in teams has developed from time to time and has grown to be an
effective method that is used all over the globe. These teams are allocated
objectives that they are supposed to meet in a set of time; they are a base for
the effectiveness of the whole team. It is hence that the role each person
plays in the group is vital.
In
the group game, the first section the team did not have any knowledge of
working in group and so personal role playing was used. This resulted to each
member having varied outcome in terms of performance, further proving that a
section of the team well understood their needs while others lacked the
necessary capability. Later the objective of the team was changed and we
connected all as a team so that we are able to learn from each other and
strengthen what we did. This led to the continued improvement in the operations
as the team worked cohesively to meet the set goals. This led to the knowledge
of team connection.
In
the first part I was the supporting manager in the company where I was to make
sure that all of the company operations are met. There however challenges in
the skills of the team members leading to a drop in quality of work. In the
second part I was the supporting staff where every team member connected their
skills towards meeting the quality of the operations allocated to company. I
was able to learn that connection on efforts and skills leads to quality
performance.
Personal Contribution was discussed by Belbin in his
theory, where he acknowledged that the role played every member relied on the
success of another member hence the need to connect in the meeting of company
goals. This had the impact of leading to success for the company. No one in the
group was considered to be better than the other one, this called for the
seeking of everybody’s opinion regardless of the role played as it has a
function in meeting the overall company goal.
The
manager, the role I played involved managing the operations of the group since
I was keen in the company goals. For the goals to be achieved it called for
coherence of the group and awareness of the duty’s played. Errors made had to
be noted and corrected fast. My contribution to the team was effective and made
it possible to meet a huge part of the goals, though a section of the goals
were yet to be met.
6.1.
Teamwork Decision
Making Methods and Impact on Company Performance
Having a well-defined and an all-inclusive team is vital for a
successful global business team. Not being able to manage the operation of the
team is next to failure in meeting the goals of the team (Argote, &
McGrath, 1993, 334). The objectives for a successful team operation are to
enable a successful interaction in the team and to instil trust. This section
assesses the methods that are applied while making decisions and the impact
that they have on company performance.
6.1.1. Overcoming Communication Barriers
A number of
operations can be applied to manage communication hindrances which affect the
global business teams.
So as to handle effectively language barriers, the company has to invest
in education language as well as diverse culture training. The training limits
the desire for third parties and hence allows direct contact and autonomy in
interaction (Brodbeck, et al. 2000, 28). A good example is ABB Group which
shows advancement in language expertise that helps to limit communication
hindrances. The leadership accepted that it had below par language making the
company feel accommodated.
Training in cultural expertise is vital in the global business team. An
effective awareness of the contrast that exists can elevate the success of
communication: individuals acquire verbal and non-verbal communication in a
better way (Brislin, 1980, 140; Turner, 1982, 56). Training in cross-cultural
expertise can develop awareness and admiration for diversity and change it
competitive benefit.
Setting policies that show the needed sets of behaviour is vital in
handling communication challenges, develop team interaction and make the team
to act as a team (Adler, 1997, 34).
A global client-based team formed in packaging company in Europe can
lead to better operation. The team was built on two issues; a team member had
to interact with the others on varied issues when handling a client, the other
would be client’s contact with all the other staff an choices are arrived at as
one team (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 346; Baird, & Meshoulam, 1988, 117).
These policies made sure that the varied associates to the team to be
responsible on matters dealing with prices and scheduling of products.
The lack of data can lead to the use of notions that may results to
individual attacks. On the other hand, personal ideas that are acquired through
use of facts are quite objective (Yates &Orlikowski, 1992, 302). This makes
it possible for the team to be able to share ideas with no regard to their
odds.
Advancing choices to develop the debate: coming up with choices is vital
in making sure that the expression of varied point of focus in the global
business team (Ohmae, 1985, 46). Two known methods are; dialectical inquiry and
devil’s advocate are keen on getting other choices. In the first one, the team
is bent on advancing a complete response with regard to the varied assumptions;
a debate arises on the advantages of the method used, the team assesses the
solution (Williams, & O’Reilly, 1998, 78). The methods are useful for the
global business team.
This method enables the team to form a strong base and make a valid
expression of the varied notions. A good example is found in VeriFone, which is
on fore front in mechanizing and issuance of safe payment-based operations, it
applies this method in the top leadership so that they are well versed of the
global setting that is present (Argote, & McGrath, 1993, 340). The team is
composed of the CEO and the data acquired are discussed for a month in varied
places in the world.
6.1.2.
Inculcating a Culture of Trust
Scheduling facial meetings: these meetings are a good form of
communication. They assist to advance a rigid base and build trust. It is vital
for the first meetings are done facially.
Rotating and connecting
the team top management:
here it is done in varied nations; the top leadership appreciates cross-border
interaction and is able to do away with encounters that block the acquisition
of success (Brislin, 1980, 390). Additionally, integration of the team brings
about connection as he or she will lead as well as act as a part of the team
that adds value to it.
Linking rewards to team
performance: this motivates
group performance to handle issues and resolve them.
Building social
capital: the teams will
go on to grow, it is hence necessary to undertake company efforts in forming
familiarity and trust in the managers. Unilever uses development programs to
make this happen.
7.
Global Business Teams are able to be successful
When the teams are well handled they are able to meet their desired
objectives. Challenges to communication and instilling trust destroy the best
teams. It is only through the use of correct methods that these issues can be
handled in the best manner.
A rigid model for making a high-performing global business team is
vital. The moment a team is comprised of members with expertise acquired from
several nations, the competition acquired is rigid (Ancona & Caldwell, 664).
Though intellectual variation is good, it will most definitely lead to a
certain level of individual friction and communication challenge. The methods
that note and expect these challenges, and use the most appropriate aspects,
are required so as to assist the team to connect varied notions and acquire at
an improved set.
8.
Self-Assessment Evaluation and Summary
My role in
the team work as a supporting manager was to ensure that all of the duties
connected to company were undertaken in the manner that they are supposed to.
The self-assessment evaluation as a method for assessing the impact of the
teamwork in the company was a vital tool in the analysis process. The time
taken was one hour in answering all of the questions which was quite much
lesser than my other team members. As the game progressed I took up the role of
the manager which involved much more duties of connection the whole group. This
took a lot more time as a lot of duties and was called upon. The contribution
to the team was satisfactory as it called on the each and every person to play
a role in coming up with an input this reflected by other team members
similarly. The teams’ strength was in the connection and communication with
other members that made the work much easier and faster as well as called on
the skills of each member. Weakness however rose in the communication and
differing of ideas that best suited the case in point.
In the
assessment for the groups, the team depended more so on accepted code of
behaviour and communication in coming up with decisions while working with the
members. When it came to working to information, the assessment relied on the
trust and data-base decision making. The working with results of the teamwork
and the company, the company relied on the locations the company did its
activities.
The
teamwork process effectively made it possible for the group to meet its
objectives in the most effective way possible. Though there were some
challenges; TM1 was unable to meet consensus on the best way to handle an issue
facing the group, the team worked them out using the decision making methods
discussed earlier. Personal working instils a lot of lack of confidence and
inefficiency which is opposite of what teamwork is able to achieve. This was
later managed with settling on an all-inclusive method in sorting out an issue
for the company.
9.
Conclusion
Global business game is an aspect that has manifested itself in
globalization and it has gone on to grow. The method brings together skills and
resources that help a company to meet its goals. There is however challenges
that arise like language and culture barrier that the paper has discussed as
well as the solutions that will enable a company to meet its goals. The teams are a great of resource for a company in its
effort to meet its goals. Varied examples have been provided that have
successfully applied this method. The future looks promising if the method is
applied in the best manner leading to effective global networks.
Self-assessment
|
Use the following scales to indicate how often and effectively you
have used each of the behaviours listed in the framework
|
|||
|
Rating
A Frequency of use
|
Rating
B Effectiveness
|
||
|
5
|
All occasions when it was needed
|
4
|
Always effective
|
|
4
|
Most occasions when it was needed
|
3
|
Usually effective
|
|
3
|
Very few occasions when it was needed
|
2
|
Occasionally effective
|
|
2
|
Never, even though situations needed it
|
1
|
Never used effectively
|
|
1
|
No opportunity to observe
|
n/a
|
Cannot say
|
1. WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing
Relationships
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
builds
relationships internally within the team
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
builds
relationships externally
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
maintains
networks
|
1
|
1
|
Team
working
|
|
|
Rating
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Is a team member
|
5
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Supports team members
|
5
|
4
|
|
L3
|
Provides direction for the team
|
2
|
3
|
Influencing
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Projects
a positive image
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Influences
thinking of others
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Changes
opinions of others
|
3
|
2
|
2. WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering
and analysing information
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Gathers
and maintains information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Checks
and analyses information
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Uses
information to analyse the business
|
4
|
3
|
Decision-making
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Day to
day decisions
|
4
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Ensures
decisions are made
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
High-level
decision-making
|
3
|
3
|
3.
DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing
self and others
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Develops
self
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
others
|
2
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Develops
a culture for learning
|
2
|
2
|
Generating
and building on ideas
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Participates
in the generation of ideas
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
ideas into solutions
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Encourages
an environment for developing ideas
|
3
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Prioritises
day to day workload
|
4
|
3
|
|
L1
|
Plans
to meet departmental objectives
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Converts
organisational plans into departmental plans
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Contributes
to the development of organisational plans
|
3
|
3
|
Deadline
management
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Takes
responsibility for tasks
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Manages
resources effectively
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Sets
and monitors deadlines and targets
|
4
|
3
|
Objective
setting
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Contributes
to setting individual objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Sets
responsibilities and objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Ensures
objectives meet functional and organisational goals
|
3
|
3
|
Peer
Assessment 1
1. WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing Relationships
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
builds relationships internally within the team
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
builds relationships externally
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
maintains networks
|
1
|
n/a
|
Team
working
|
|
|
Rating
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Is a team member
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Supports team members
|
4
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Provides direction for the
team
|
3
|
2
|
Influencing
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Projects a positive image
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Influences thinking of others
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Changes opinions of others
|
3
|
3
|
2. WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering and analysing information
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Gathers and maintains information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Checks and analyses information
|
4
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Uses information to analyse the business
|
3
|
2
|
Decision-making
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Day to day decisions
|
5
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Ensures decisions are made
|
4
|
4
|
|
L3
|
High-level decision-making
|
3
|
3
|
3. DEVELOPING
THE BUSINESS
Developing self and others
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Develops self
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops others
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Develops a culture for learning
|
2
|
1
|
Generating and building on ideas
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Participates in the generation of ideas
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops ideas into solutions
|
4
|
4
|
|
L3
|
Encourages an environment for developing ideas
|
3
|
2
|
4. ACHIEVING
RESULTS
Planning
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Prioritises day to day workload
|
4
|
3
|
|
L1
|
Plans to meet departmental objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Converts organisational plans into departmental
plans
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Contributes to the development of organisational
plans
|
3
|
2
|
Deadline management
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Takes responsibility for tasks
|
5
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Manages resources effectively
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Sets and monitors deadlines and targets
|
4
|
3
|
Objective setting
|
|
|
Rating a
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Contributes to setting individual objectives
|
5
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Sets responsibilities and objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Ensures objectives meet functional and
organisational goals
|
3
|
2
|
Peer
Assessment 2
1. WORKING
WITH PEOPLE
Managing
Relationships
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
builds
relationships internally within the team
|
4
|
4
|
|
L2
|
builds
relationships externally
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
maintains
networks
|
3
|
2
|
Team
working
|
|
|
Rating A
|
Rating B
|
|
L1
|
Is a team member
|
5
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Supports team members
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Provides direction for the team
|
3
|
3
|
Influencing
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Projects
a positive image
|
4
|
4
|
|
L2
|
Influences
thinking of others
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Changes
opinions of others
|
4
|
3
|
2.
WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering
and analysing information
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Gathers
and maintains information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Checks
and analyses information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Uses
information to analyse the business
|
3
|
2
|
Decision-making
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Day to
day decisions
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Ensures
decisions are made
|
4
|
2
|
|
L3
|
High-level
decision-making
|
4
|
3
|
3.
DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing
self and others
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Develops
self
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
others
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Develops
a culture for learning
|
2
|
2
|
Generating
and building on ideas
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Participates
in the generation of ideas
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
ideas into solutions
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Encourages
an environment for developing ideas
|
4
|
3
|
4.
ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Prioritises
day to day workload
|
4
|
3
|
|
L1
|
Plans
to meet departmental objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Converts
organisational plans into departmental plans
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Contributes
to the development of organisational plans
|
4
|
3
|
Deadline
management
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Takes
responsibility for tasks
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Manages
resources effectively
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Sets
and monitors deadlines and targets
|
4
|
2
|
Objective
setting
|
|
|
Rating
A
|
Rating
B
|
|
L1
|
Contributes
to setting individual objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Sets
responsibilities and objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Ensures
objectives meet functional and organisational goals
|
3
|
2
|
Peer
Assessment 3
1. WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing
Relationships
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
builds
relationships internally within the team
|
4
|
2
|
|
L2
|
builds
relationships externally
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
maintains
networks
|
3
|
2
|
Team
working
|
|
|
Rating
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Is a team member
|
4
|
2
|
|
L2
|
Supports team members
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Provides direction for the team
|
2
|
2
|
Influencing
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Projects
a positive image
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Influences
thinking of others
|
4
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Changes
opinions of others
|
3
|
3
|
2. WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering
and analysing information
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Gathers
and maintains information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Checks
and analyses information
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Uses
information to analyse the business
|
3
|
3
|
Decision-making
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Day to
day decisions
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Ensures
decisions are made
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
High-level
decision-making
|
3
|
3
|
3.
DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing
self and others
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Develops
self
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
others
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Develops
a culture for learning
|
3
|
2
|
Generating
and building on ideas
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Participates
in the generation of ideas
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Develops
ideas into solutions
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Encourages
an environment for developing ideas
|
2
|
1
|
4.
ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Prioritises
day to day workload
|
4
|
3
|
|
L1
|
Plans
to meet departmental objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Converts
organisational plans into departmental plans
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Contributes
to the development of organisational plans
|
3
|
2
|
Deadline
management
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Takes
responsibility for tasks
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Manages
resources effectively
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Sets
and monitors deadlines and targets
|
3
|
3
|
Objective
setting
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Contributes
to setting individual objectives
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Sets
responsibilities and objectives
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Ensures
objectives meet functional and organisational goals
|
2
|
2
|
Peer
Assessment 4
1. WORKING WITH PEOPLE
Managing
Relationships
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
builds
relationships internally within the team
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
builds
relationships externally
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
maintains
networks
|
3
|
3
|
Team
working
|
|
|
Rating
|
Rating b
|
|
L1
|
Is a team member
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Supports team members
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Provides direction for the team
|
4
|
3
|
Influencing
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Projects
a positive image
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Influences
thinking of others
|
3
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Changes
opinions of others
|
3
|
2
|
2. WORKING WITH INFORMATION
Gathering
and analysing information
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Gathers
and maintains information
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Checks
and analyses information
|
3
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Uses
information to analyse the business
|
3
|
3
|
Decision-making
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Day to
day decisions
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Ensures
decisions are made
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
High-level
decision-making
|
3
|
2
|
3.
DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS
Developing
self and others
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Develops
self
|
3
|
2
|
|
L2
|
Develops
others
|
2
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Develops
a culture for learning
|
2
|
1
|
Generating
and building on ideas
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Participates
in the generation of ideas
|
4
|
2
|
|
L2
|
Develops
ideas into solutions
|
2
|
2
|
|
L3
|
Encourages
an environment for developing ideas
|
3
|
2
|
4.
ACHIEVING RESULTS
Planning
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Prioritises
day to day workload
|
4
|
3
|
|
L1
|
Plans
to meet departmental objectives
|
3
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Converts
organisational plans into departmental plans
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Contributes
to the development of organisational plans
|
3
|
3
|
Deadline management
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Takes
responsibility for tasks
|
5
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Manages
resources effectively
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Sets
and monitors deadlines and targets
|
4
|
3
|
Objective
setting
|
|
|
Rating
a
|
Rating
b
|
|
L1
|
Contributes
to setting individual objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L2
|
Sets
responsibilities and objectives
|
4
|
3
|
|
L3
|
Ensures
objectives meet functional and organisational goals
|
3
|
3
|
Bibliography
Adler, N. J.
(1997) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. 3rd
ed. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.
Ancona, D. G.
& Caldwell, D. F. (1992) Bridging the boundary: External activity and
Performance in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 634-665.
Argote, L. &
McGrath, J. E. (1993) Group Processes in Organizations: Continuity and change. International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 8, pp. 333-389.
Ariel, S. (2001)
The Effect of Geographical Dispersion on Team Process and Effectiveness.
Working Paper. Graduate School of
Business, Stanford University.
Baird, L. &
Meshoulam, I. (1988) Managing two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Review, 13,
pp. 116-128.
Bantel, K. A.
& Jackson, S. E. (1989) Top Management and Innovation In banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?
Strategic Management Journal,
10 (Special Issue), pp. 107-124.
Bedeian, A. G.
& Mossholder, K. W. (2000) On the Use of the Coefficient Of Variation as a
Measure of Diversity. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, pp. 285-297, p. 209.
Berry, J. W. (1989)
Imposed Ethics, Emics, Derived etics: The Operationalization of a Compelling
Idea. International Journal of
Psychology, 24, pp. 721-35.
Berscheid, E.
& Walster, H. (1978) Interpersonal
Attraction. Reading, MA :Addison-Wesley.
Bettenhausen, K.
L. (1991) Five Years of Group’s Research: What we have learned and what Needs
to be Addressed. Journal of
Management, 17, pp. 345-381.
Black, J. S.,
Gregersen, H. B., Mendenhall, M. E. & Stroh, L. K. (1999) Globalizing People Through International
Assignments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bliese, P. D.
(2000) Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implication
for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In: Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J.
eds. Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations, pp. 349-381. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Brislin,
R. W. (1986) The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In: Lonner,
W. J. & Berry, J. W. eds. Field
Methods in Cross-Cultural Research methods, pp.137-164. Newbury, CA:
Sage Publications.
Brislin, R. W.
(1980) Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material. In:
Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. eds. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, pp. 389-444.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brodbeck, F. C.,
Frese, M., Akerbloom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D.,
Bosur, M., Boothe, S., Brenk, K., Castel, P., Hartog, D., Donnelly-Cox, G.,
Gratchev, M., Holmberg, I., Jarmuz, S., Jesusino, J., Jorbenadse, R.,
Kabasakal, H., Keating, M., Kipiani, G., Konrad, E., Koopman, P., Kurc, A.,
Leeds, C., Lindell, M., Maczynski, J., Martin, G., O’Connell, J.,
Papalexandris, A., Papalexandris, N., Prieto, J., Rakitski, B., Reber, G.,
Sabadin, A., Schramm-Nielsen, J., Schultz, M., Sigfrids, C., Szabo, E.,
Thierry, H., Vondrysova, M., Weibler, J., Wilderom, C., Witkowski, S.,
Wunderer, R. (2000) Cultural Variation of Leadership Prototypes across 22
European Countries. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, pp. 1-29.
Nohria, N. &
Eccles, R. G. (1992) Network and
Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
O’Leary, M. B.
& Cummings, J. N. (2002) The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational
Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Work Teams. Available from:
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/148_OlearyCummings_GeographicDispersion.pdf
Ohmae, K. (1985)
Triad power: The Coming Shape of
Global Competition. New York, NY: Free Press.
Pedhazur, E. J.
& Schmelkin, L. (1991) Measurement,
Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tuckman, B. W.
(1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp. 384-399, p. 226.
Turner, J.
(1982) Toward a Cognitive Definition of the Group. In: Tajfel, H. ed. Social Identity and Inter-Group Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Van de Ven, A.
H. & Ferry, D. L. (1980) Measuring
and assessing Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wiener, Y.
(1988) Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and
Cultural Change and
Maintenance. Academy of Management
Review, 13, pp. 536-551.
Williams, K. Y.
& O’Reilly, C. A. (1998) Demography and Diversity in Organization: A Review
of 40 years of Research. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 77-140.
Yates J. &
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992) Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structural
Approach to Studying Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 299-326.
Hire Writers For Essays, Research Papers,Custom Written For $8/page. Get A Free Abstract Before Paying!
